Are all types of wrongdoing created equal in the eyes of voters?

Sandra Botero, Rodrigo Castro, Laura Gamboa, Nara Pavãod, David W. Nickersone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Do voters evaluate some forms of political wrongdoing more harshly than others? Do they punish private enrichment and clientelism equally? We argue that voters’ responses to political wrongdoing are a function of the expected benefits voters associate with specific types of malpractice. We conducted a survey experiment varying two common types of political wrongdoing and measuring citizens’ evaluations of political candidates in Argentina. The results show that respondents punish politicians engaged in private enrichment more severely than politicians engaged in clientelism. We test two arguments that could provide a mechanism for this phenomenon. While the strength of one's partisan affiliation does not moderate the treatment effect, we find that respondents with low socio-economic status punish illicit enrichment more harshly than clientelism and that respondents with high socio-economic status punish both types of wrongdoing equally.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2-28
Number of pages26
JournalJournal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties
Volume29
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2019

Cite this

Botero, Sandra ; Castro, Rodrigo ; Gamboa, Laura ; Pavãod, Nara ; Nickersone, David W. . / Are all types of wrongdoing created equal in the eyes of voters?. In: Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 2019 ; Vol. 29. pp. 2-28.
@article{d1f53d04626a45eb9ad87ea9796bcad7,
title = "Are all types of wrongdoing created equal in the eyes of voters?",
abstract = "Do voters evaluate some forms of political wrongdoing more harshly than others? Do they punish private enrichment and clientelism equally? We argue that voters’ responses to political wrongdoing are a function of the expected benefits voters associate with specific types of malpractice. We conducted a survey experiment varying two common types of political wrongdoing and measuring citizens’ evaluations of political candidates in Argentina. The results show that respondents punish politicians engaged in private enrichment more severely than politicians engaged in clientelism. We test two arguments that could provide a mechanism for this phenomenon. While the strength of one's partisan affiliation does not moderate the treatment effect, we find that respondents with low socio-economic status punish illicit enrichment more harshly than clientelism and that respondents with high socio-economic status punish both types of wrongdoing equally.",
author = "Sandra Botero and Rodrigo Castro and Laura Gamboa and Nara Pav{\~a}od and Nickersone, {David W.}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1651322",
language = "Ingl{\'e}s",
volume = "29",
pages = "2--28",
journal = "Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties",
issn = "1745-7289",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

Are all types of wrongdoing created equal in the eyes of voters? / Botero, Sandra; Castro, Rodrigo; Gamboa, Laura ; Pavãod, Nara ; Nickersone, David W. .

In: Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 29, 08.2019, p. 2-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are all types of wrongdoing created equal in the eyes of voters?

AU - Botero, Sandra

AU - Castro, Rodrigo

AU - Gamboa, Laura

AU - Pavãod, Nara

AU - Nickersone, David W.

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - Do voters evaluate some forms of political wrongdoing more harshly than others? Do they punish private enrichment and clientelism equally? We argue that voters’ responses to political wrongdoing are a function of the expected benefits voters associate with specific types of malpractice. We conducted a survey experiment varying two common types of political wrongdoing and measuring citizens’ evaluations of political candidates in Argentina. The results show that respondents punish politicians engaged in private enrichment more severely than politicians engaged in clientelism. We test two arguments that could provide a mechanism for this phenomenon. While the strength of one's partisan affiliation does not moderate the treatment effect, we find that respondents with low socio-economic status punish illicit enrichment more harshly than clientelism and that respondents with high socio-economic status punish both types of wrongdoing equally.

AB - Do voters evaluate some forms of political wrongdoing more harshly than others? Do they punish private enrichment and clientelism equally? We argue that voters’ responses to political wrongdoing are a function of the expected benefits voters associate with specific types of malpractice. We conducted a survey experiment varying two common types of political wrongdoing and measuring citizens’ evaluations of political candidates in Argentina. The results show that respondents punish politicians engaged in private enrichment more severely than politicians engaged in clientelism. We test two arguments that could provide a mechanism for this phenomenon. While the strength of one's partisan affiliation does not moderate the treatment effect, we find that respondents with low socio-economic status punish illicit enrichment more harshly than clientelism and that respondents with high socio-economic status punish both types of wrongdoing equally.

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1651322

DO - https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1651322

M3 - Artículo

VL - 29

SP - 2

EP - 28

JO - Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

JF - Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

SN - 1745-7289

ER -